A Powerful Prevention Tool for Binge Drinking

Nguyen 1

My Nguyen

Collin Hull

English 2010

Position/Proposal RevisedDraft

Date: Dec 5th, 2013

A Powerful Prevention Tool for Binge Drinking

Due to peer pressure, job tension, and social stress,a lot of Americans view drinking as a very large part of their social life experience and the college experience for young students in order to change their mental and emotional statuses. Especially, underage drinking has been rampant in the United States, which is known as the land of freedom and opportunities. According to national surveys by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), about 90% of the alcohol consumed by youth under the age of 21 in the United States is in the form of binge drinking.

Figure1: Underage drinking

Source: Burlington News Weekly. Mar 23. 2012

Web.Oct 7, 2013

TheNational Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholismdefines binge drinking as “a pattern of drinking that brings a person’s blood alcohol concentration to 0.08 grams percent or above. It typically occurs when men consume five or more drinks, and when women consume four or more drinks, in about two hours” (NIAAA). So binge drinking simply means drinking heavily in a short period of time.Undoubtedly, binge drinking has become a persistent issue that everyone should be aware of. It also poses a major concern and an intriguing phenomenon, and has emerged as one of the unhealthiest aspects of college life on many campuses across the United States for many decades. Regrettably, binge drinking brings many catastrophic outcomes for young college students who are trying to build a bright future in school. The huge negative consequences of drinking to youth have been recognized as national epidemic.The NIAAA estimates annually that 1,825 college students between the ages of eighteen and twenty-four die from alcohol-related unintentional injuries, including motor vehicle crashes, 696,000 students between the ages of 18 and 24 are assaulted by another student who has been drinking, 97,000 students between the ages of 18 and 24 are victims of alcohol-related sexual assault or date rape (qtd. in Hingson et al). “Do not let one night of drinking turn into a lifelong nightmare” is solid advice for all drinker.

These significant statistics above makes many parents, administrators of many colleges and universities, researchers and presidentsfeel worried for society. Because young students are the important man-power and the future of America rests on those students success, therefore one of ultimate goals of society is seeking the treatments to kill this cancer—binge drinking.So what is the most effective and cost-effective intervention in alcohol control for society’s current circumstance? The frank answer that is increasing alcohol taxation is a powerful prevention tool for the serious epidemic—binge drinking—because there are numerous beneficial consequences of increasing taxation, such as: significantly reducing underage drinking consumption, decreasing the level of alcohol related-problems, saving thousands of young lives, and raising revenue for public purposes.

Much research believes that the low price of alcohol can stimulate consumption, thus increasing alcohol taxation will reduce alcohol consumption. “When alcohol is cheaper at the corner store than milk, orange juice or sometimes even water, it sends young people the wrong message” (qtd. in Vimont).The Law of Demand is one of fundamental laws of economics. Alfred Marshall, the author of the book Principles of Economics, figures out the relationship of quantity demanded of a product is inversely related to its price. Based on economic theory, correlatively, increasing the price of alcohol would expect to lower alcohol consumption and reduce harmful consequences, depicted in Figure 2.

Figure 2: A link of Alcohol taxation and the consequence of binge drinking

Conceptual model for the causal relationship between increased alcohol taxes and decreased excessive alcohol consumption and related harms

Source: Elder et al / Am J Prev Med 2010;38(2):217–229

Published by Elsevier Inc. on behalf of American Journal of Preventive

Medicine. Sep. 21, 2013

There are some factual illustrations that increasing alcohol taxes brings advantages. According to David H. Jernigan, Director of the Center on Alcohol Marketing and Youth (CAMY) and Associate Professor at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, estimated thatif Maryland increases excise tax of a alcohol drink by a dime that would reduce alcohol consumption by 4.8 percent, raise $214.4 million in new revenue for the state and result in a savings of an additional $249 million in costs incurred in the state as a result of alcohol consumption, and prevent almost 15,000 cases of alcohol dependence annually (qtd.in Vimont). Several case studies examine the relationship of alcohol taxation and consumption. A study by the National Bureau of Economic Research concluded, “even a modest tax increase of 30 cents for a bottle of liquor and 10 cents for a six-pack of beer would decrease drinking among young people as much as raising the drinking age by one year”(NBER).Specifically, in March 2004, the Finnish government tried to lower alcohol taxation from 44 percent to 33 percent to protect domestic sales; as a result, alcohol consumption levels in Finland increased 50 percent from the previous year (qtd. in Park). Alcoholic beverage prices and taxes are inversely related to drinking excessively.

The scientific evidence of many economists who study health behavior has affirmed that increasing alcohol price directly influences alcohol consumption; hence, alcohol price will reduce alcohol related problems and can save thousands of young lives. Alexander C. Wagenaar, professor of Health Outcomes and Policy at UF College of Medicine,claims, “When the excise tax on tobacco went up, consumption went down and the diseases associated with tobacco also went down, number of saved lives went up rapidly. Now, with the current study, we're finding the same thing for alcohol”(qtd. in Park).Wagenaar concludes that alcohol taxation and saved lives have positive relationship, while alcohol taxation and alcohol related problems have negative relationship. As current research has shown, in 2004 in Finland, the result of lowering alcohol taxation slightly more than 10% increased the rate of liver disease death by 46%. A similar result has been documented in Australia (qtd.in Doran & Shakeshaft). Additionally, according to a study at the U.S. CDCP, a beer-tax increase of $0.20 per six-pack would reduce gonorrhea rates by 8.9 percent and syphilis rates by 32.7 percent (qtd.in Chesson el at). Apparently, consuming alcohol brings many negative consequences.

Increasing alcohol taxation is not only beneficial for drinkers individually, but also brings benefits, such as easing deficits and raising significant sources of revenue for states and government that can establish many helpful public programs. A 2008 report of the Congressional Budget Office estimated that modestly increasing and reforming alcohol taxes could generate more than $28 billion in new revenue over five years (qtd. in Crump). Figure 3 below depicts the total revenue that could be earned by increasing alcohol taxes in Texas by 5¢, 10¢ or 25¢, according to Marin Tax and Revenue Institute.As small as a 25¢ state alcohol excise tax increase per serving of beer, liquor, and wine would generate $2.2 Billion for Texas state coffers. That would be a fantastic outcome! With the huge available revenue, society could utilize it to offer diverse useful programs for the public, such as opening free educational classes about the effects of alcohol and drugs and building some more state service for alcohol prevention and treatments.

Per Drink / 5¢ / 10¢ / 25¢
Excise Tax Revenue Increase / $462,000,000 / $908,000,000 / $2,150,000,000
Change in Sales Tax Revenue / $12,600,00 / $24,200,000 / $52,700,000
Total / $475,000,000 / $932,000,000 / $2,200,000,000

Many positive advantages of increasing alcohol taxation for drinkers and societies have been documented. However, some researchers argue that raising alcohol taxes to try to reduce drinking rates can actually backfire and raising alcohol taxes can cause the opposite effects many others expect, because “drinkers who were buying the more expensive brands will switch to cheaper drinks” (qtd.in Buddy). For example, Paul J. Gruenewald, senior research scientist at the Prevention Research Center, said:

Our study accepts the assumption that alcohol is a "complex good," composed of different beverage types – such as beer, wine and spirits – as well as quality brands that can be high-, medium- or low-end. We then go on to examine the impacts of the broad distribution of alcohol beverage prices upon sales of alcohol. Our results show that higher alcohol prices may not cause reductions in alcohol sales and related problems. (Gruenewald el at)

The proposal of increasing alcohol taxes is increasing the least expensive alcoholic beverages as well. Understandably, for young and non- addicted people, given the same earning incomes, when prices go down, they drink more, and when prices go up, they drink less. Of course, many individuals will drink less frequently and drink less on each drinking occasion. Probably, affluent drinkerswould consume about the same amount of alcohol regardless of the cost, but generally young people are more price-sensitive, thus higher prices should help delay and reduce drinking within this group. Plus, some people assume that higher alcohol prices in one country than in neighboring countries can lead to smuggling or increased border trade. But there is no clear evidence that increases in alcohol taxes and prices have a special effect on illegal drug consumption.

There are also other argumentsincreasing alcohol taxation from industry. For instance, they argue that increasing alcohol taxes will not increase revenue because alcohol sales will decline. Admittedly, as taxes increase, prices increase, and sales decrease, thus revenue declines as well. Nevertheless, since sales and consumptions of alcohol will fall, diseases, health related alcohol problem, abuses, and violence will drop also. The money that can be saved from health costs and safety costs gains revenue for society. As an illustration, in Maryland state senators approved a three-percent alcohol tax increase from six percent to nine percent in 2011, eventually raising an estimated $85 million a year (qtd.in Staff). That was a real result.In addition, hearing several unimaginably tragic deaths of freshman and young students suffering from severe alcohol poisoning or alcohol abuse reported on newspapers and television recently has raised a difficult question for colleges and universities on how to eliminate alcohol and make campuses healthier and safer. Many colleges and universities suggest simple enforcement of alcohol policies on campuses, particularly a complete ban on alcohol use regardless of age is an important goal. Professor Wagenaarpoints out the environmental factors, such as availability ofalcohol, “serve as a major determinant of how much young people will drink and the negative outcomes of their drinking” (Wagenaar). He avows that higher drinking rates amongcollegestudents can be directly linked to the availability of and ease of access to alcohol, and as drinking rates increase, the dangerous effects to drinkers also increase. Furthermore, Hollins University President Nancy Gray said, “It's part of our effort to make campuses attractive and comfortable if a student wants to live substance-free and with others who are committed to a healthy lifestyle,”(qtd. in Bardin). She clarifies how colleges can deal with the challenges of underage and excessive drinking among students by banning alcohol in colleges as a tool to help students make safer choices about alcohol because safety is one of the important factors that students and parents need to address as they want to enter colleges.

Does banning alcohol on campuses to curb binge drinking work? In order to answer this question, follow some recent research. For instance, Henry Wechsler, Director of College Alcohol Study at the Harvard School of Public Health, claims that “perhaps no college alcohol topic has generated as much speculation without the benefit of research as the banning of alcohol on college campuses”(Wechcler). Wechsler believes that banning alcohol at college is not going to cure all campus problems related to alcohol, and the students will drink just as much or even more if alcohol is banned. Moreover, a study appearing in the March 2010 issue of the Journal of Studies on Alcohol(volume 62, number 2) pointed out that student drinkers at schools that ban alcohol experience the same rate of alcohol-related problems as their peers at schools that do not ban alcohol. At both types of schools, about one in five students experience five or more different problems related to their drinking. Banning alcohol on campus is not fair to the vast majority of these young adults mature enough to drink responsibly without risking their lives. Back in U.S history, there was a period of nearly fourteen years, from 1920 to 1933, when the United States banned the sale, production, and purchases all kinds of alcohol nationally. It was known as “Prohibition” (“Prohibition”). People believed that prohibition was supposed to lower crime and corruption, reduce social problems, and improve health in America. Unfortunately, alcohol became more dangerous to consume and increased violence drastically. Obviously, banning did not work more than 90 years ago; correlatively, banning alcohol on campuses has not been effective, socampuses need not try to revive it.

Ultimately, increasing alcohol taxes is an efficient method to curtail underage drinking.Alcohol taxes are part of a broad plan to keep these underage drinking indicators moving in the right direction. Alcohol taxes are part of a broad strategy to reduce awful death caused by drinking excessively. Alcohol taxes are part of the efficient solution to complex problems. The increased alcohol tax will help us fight the uphill battle against alcohol use by teens. The evidence proves it.

Proposal

Comparing the value of dollars ($) with the value of Vietnamese money (VND), one dollar equals 20,000 VND. There is the huge disparity between dollars and Vietnamese money. For example, with one dollar we can buy only ice cream in the United States, but with one dollar we can buy about ten ice creams in Viet Nam. Surprisingly, one dollar can only buy one Heineken beer in Viet Nam, the same as we do in the U.S. This analogyexemplifies clearly alcohol price in U.S. is so cheap. Furthermore, many losses of lives and somber public health outcomes resulting from alcohol use are contributed by two important factors: alcohol price and alcohol promotion.Increasing alcohol taxation needs to be implemented immediately and nationally to combat the acute disease—binge drinking.

In the example of Maryland State in 2011 above, increasing three percent alcohol taxes raised $85 trillion a year. The proposal that I would like to suggest is call upon as manyindividuals and organizations to support increasing alcohol taxes by three percent in each state byencouraging State Representatives call a bill to implement it.After gathering the factual evidences and statistic of the consequences of alcohol use and the benefits of increasing alcohol taxes, the first step of the campaign—increasing alcohol taxes—is give a powerful and sharp voice to the public so that can persuade policy makers, state officials, and government to support enthusiastically this campaign with the main goal of killing this malignant cancer. Start targeting many different institutions such as colleges, universities that have the vast majority of underage drinking, multicultural communities by develop the fact sheets, poster, brochures for distribution and using petitions to accumulate the maximum support by collecting all signatures of students who agree with this campaign. Also, utilizing the social page Facebook to connect people with people around the country and circulate the message. Set up one website to focus public attention on alcohol and the important of issue. Or build support from a coalition of groups such as: groups against underage drinking, anti-drugs organizations or the CDC, also the local leaders such as local mayors, city councils, chief of police, and different individuals who have an interest in raising alcohol taxes to magnify the campaign’s impact. Besides, make presentations to clubs, fraternal organizations or community membersto ignite their enthusiasm on the need to combat alcohol problems.

Finally, write a letter, send it to editor, each separate state legislator, andeach state House of Representatives. The letter can be from a community group or a coalition of organizations with the message convincing them to understand how alcohol tax increases concretely improve lives, health, and well-being of communities. The letter also is attached with all signatures of supporters to prove the House of Representatives needs to take action on this campaign now. Furthermore, recommend thatalong with increasing alcohol taxes they should restrict alcohol advertising and promotion that appeal young people, as well as regulate the minimum price level and set limits on price discrimination at the wholesale level.

In conclusion, the answer of the question “How does society combat with binge drinking” is found.Increasing alcohol taxes are a double winner because it saves thousands of young lives and raise significant revenue for society. One report by the National Bureau of Economic Research concludes, “If reductions in youth alcohol consumption, heavy alcohol consumption and alcohol-related injuries and deaths are desired, an increase in taxes on alcoholic beverages is an effective policy to accomplish these goals” (qtd.in Grossman el at). If declining to increase alcohol taxes, Congress will surely fail to realize the twin opportunity of increasing state andfederal revenue and reducing deaths.

Works Cited

Chesson, Hadley. HarrisonPark, andKassler William. “Sex under the influence: The effect of